IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7388-d410906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Product Attributes and Farm Program Features

Author

Listed:
  • Chengyan Yue

    (Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
    Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA)

  • Yufeng Lai

    (Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA)

  • Jingjing Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Paul Mitchell

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

Abstract

Previous literature primarily focused on consumers’ preference for specific sustainable attributes, such as a product being organic, eco-friendly, locally grown, and fair trade. Little is known about consumers’ preference for sustainable program features. We conduct two online choice experiments with U.S. consumers and find that consumers consistently care about farmers’ engagements in sustainable programs, and they are willing to pay a price premium for products from such programs. Consumers also value promoting science in sustainability, establishing concrete measurements of sustainability, and communicating sustainable practices with consumers and downstream industries. We apply the latent class logit model to investigate the potential segmentation of consumers. Three consumer segments are identified based on participants’ heterogeneity in preferences. Our research provides useful information for designing new sustainability programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chengyan Yue & Yufeng Lai & Jingjing Wang & Paul Mitchell, 2020. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Product Attributes and Farm Program Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7388-:d:410906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7388/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7388/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumers' Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 29-46, April.
    2. Raluca Dragusanu & Daniele Giovannucci & Nathan Nunn, 2014. "The Economics of Fair Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(3), pages 217-236, Summer.
    3. Hu, Wuyang & Woods, Timothy A. & Bastin, Sandra, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Blueberry Products with Nonconventional Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(1), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Uchida, Hirotsugu & Roheim, Cathy A. & Wakamatsu, Hiroki & Anderson, Christopher M., 2014. "Do Japanese consumers care about sustainable fisheries? Evidence from an auction of ecolabelled seafood," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(2), April.
    5. Marette, Stéphan & Messéan, Antoine & Millet, Guy, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: Evidences from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 151-161.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    7. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    10. Raluca Dragusanu & Eduardo Montero & Nathan Nunn, 2022. "The Effects of Fair Trade Certification: Evidence from Coffee Producers in Costa Rica," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1743-1790.
    11. Kathleen Brooks & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1229-1241.
    12. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumersï¾’ Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12693, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    14. Yuko Onozaka & Gretchen Nurse & Dawn Thilmany McFadden, 2010. "Defining Sustainable Food Market Segments: Do Motivations and Values Vary by Shopping Locale?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 583-589.
    15. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    16. Jens Hainmueller & Michael J. Hiscox & Sandra Sequeira, 2015. "Consumer Demand for Fair Trade: Evidence from a Multistore Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 242-256, May.
    17. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    18. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chun-Wei Chen, 2023. "A Feasibility Discussion: Is ML Suitable for Predicting Sustainable Patterns in Consumer Product Preferences?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Dong, Fengxia & Mitchell, Paul D., 2023. "Economic and risk analysis of sustainable practice adoption among U.S. corn growers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan & Watkins, Eric & Barnes, Mike, 2023. "Investigating the Efficacy of Government Rebates: A Case of the Smart Irrigation System," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(3), September.
    2. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    5. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    6. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    7. Carroll, James & Aravena, Claudia & Denny, Eleanor, 2016. "Low energy efficiency in rental properties: Asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 617-629.
    8. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    10. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.
    11. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    13. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    14. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin, 2013. "Benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions of the potential introduction of a fungus-resistant banana in Uganda and policy implications," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 4, pages 99-141, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    19. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7388-:d:410906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.